4 ms·

> Just enough to keep it without bacteria. Bacteria (and certainly viruses) can survive 80 proof liquor. 1% alcohol is going to have very little sterilization

> Just enough to keep it without bacteria. Bacteria (and certainly viruses) can survive 80 proof liquor. 1% alcohol is going to have very little sterilization effect.

xorcist 1y ago
It's not the alcohol that's supposed to kill bacteria, it's the long boil.
- oofManBang 1y ago
  The boil does kill the bacteria, but it's not preserved after the boil. At best it's as sterile as water; at worse it spoils faster due to the abundance of nutrients.
  - xorcist 1y ago
    That's why it's kept sealed, under pressure. I wouldn't fill a water bottle and let it sit for many months before drinking it ever today. A beer bottle with CO2 atmosphere can sit for a long time. There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course, just not for freshness. And freshness could absolutely have been relevant in the choice of drinks to load, together with low cost and acceptance in general.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      Sealing liquids user pressure on a large scale wasn’t really feasible back in those days though. They were just generally kept in wooden barrels.
      - larsga 1y ago
        Wooden barrels were sealed and could handle high pressure. The trouble is that (long story) it was very difficult to get a precise amount of pressure, so people generally didn't even try. There are videos online of cases where people have failed and end up battling a beer barrel spraying beer like a firehose.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - oofManBang 1y ago
      Would technology that allows sealing of beer not apply even better to relatively nutrition-less water? Especially boiled water. Anything that can feed off of pottery + water or metal + water or glass + water is gonna take a lot longer to grow than basically any kind of familiar bacteria feeding off beer + any of the above. > There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course I imagine these are largely the same reasons people drink beer today. Spoiler: it generally ain't hydration or avoidance of disease.
      - bohrbohra 1y ago
        > relatively nutrition-less water That's what I was thinking. Why would boiled water kept hermetically sealed in a glass bottle for a year go bad ?
        xorcist 1y ago
        Absolutely, I just suspect that wasn't a realistic option at the time. It is obvious a keg of beer has not gone flat but it's probably not as obvious when buying a keg of boiled water (if that even was a thing back then).
        oofManBang 1y ago
        Ships carried literal tons of fresh water. I'm not sure the details of treatment or how it was provisioned—provisioning beer was such a massive logistical task we have mountains of records, but we have a paucity of corresponding records for water—but we have sufficient records of what happens when that fresh water disappears or becomes tainted to know it was of paramount importance. Keeping water fresh is not quite as difficult as you might think. For one thing, wood has naturally antibacterial properties; it can be trivially sealed with pitch and tar (which also has antibacterial properties), and it just takes one quartermaster to babysit it. If anything, beer is a way of preserving calories and boosting morale. The fact that drinking a gallon of it translates roughly to drinking 97% of a gallon of water and does end up being quite hydrating just doesn't imply that people didn't also drink water sans beer.
    - bohrbohra 1y ago
      What exactly would happen if I kept water in a sealed glass bottle and drank it after a year ?
- larsga 1y ago
  First of all, many types of beer were historically not boiled. Quite a few still aren't. The mash, however, pasteurizes the beer. That, however, doesn't last forever. In the conditions of the 18th century or whatever, microorganisms will get into the beer after mashing/boiling, so the heat treatment only helps for a while. The fermentation really does protect the beer afterwards, but it's a combination of low pH, alcohol, low oxygen, little nutrients, CO2, etc. Hops also help against gram-positive bacteria.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Hops weren’t that popular until the 1400-1500s (or not used at all in some places like England) though
    - larsga 1y ago
      You're broadly right, but they were popular for most of the period we're discussing. In continental Europe they were popular from roughly ~1000 onwards (see Behre 1999), in England from roughly 1500 onwards. In African and South American farmhouse brewing they're still not used. So it's a pretty complicated picture. As the comment made clear, hops are only one component of what makes beer safe, though. Storable, safe beer for travel is documented already in Ancient Egypt.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Yes and ancient Greeks and Romans already knew that boiling water somehow makes it safer to drink. Yet people continued wasting resources on time on making beer and similar drinks due to whatever reasons..

> Just enough to keep it without bacteria. Bacteria (and certainly viruses) can survive 80 proof liquor. 1% alcohol is going to have very little sterilization effect.

xorcist 1y ago

It's not the alcohol that's supposed to kill bacteria, it's the long boil.

oofManBang 1y ago
The boil does kill the bacteria, but it's not preserved after the boil. At best it's as sterile as water; at worse it spoils faster due to the abundance of nutrients.
- xorcist 1y ago
  That's why it's kept sealed, under pressure. I wouldn't fill a water bottle and let it sit for many months before drinking it ever today. A beer bottle with CO2 atmosphere can sit for a long time. There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course, just not for freshness. And freshness could absolutely have been relevant in the choice of drinks to load, together with low cost and acceptance in general.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Sealing liquids user pressure on a large scale wasn’t really feasible back in those days though. They were just generally kept in wooden barrels.
    - larsga 1y ago
      Wooden barrels were sealed and could handle high pressure. The trouble is that (long story) it was very difficult to get a precise amount of pressure, so people generally didn't even try. There are videos online of cases where people have failed and end up battling a beer barrel spraying beer like a firehose.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - oofManBang 1y ago
    Would technology that allows sealing of beer not apply even better to relatively nutrition-less water? Especially boiled water. Anything that can feed off of pottery + water or metal + water or glass + water is gonna take a lot longer to grow than basically any kind of familiar bacteria feeding off beer + any of the above. > There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course I imagine these are largely the same reasons people drink beer today. Spoiler: it generally ain't hydration or avoidance of disease.
    - bohrbohra 1y ago
      > relatively nutrition-less water That's what I was thinking. Why would boiled water kept hermetically sealed in a glass bottle for a year go bad ?
      - xorcist 1y ago
        Absolutely, I just suspect that wasn't a realistic option at the time. It is obvious a keg of beer has not gone flat but it's probably not as obvious when buying a keg of boiled water (if that even was a thing back then).
        oofManBang 1y ago
        Ships carried literal tons of fresh water. I'm not sure the details of treatment or how it was provisioned—provisioning beer was such a massive logistical task we have mountains of records, but we have a paucity of corresponding records for water—but we have sufficient records of what happens when that fresh water disappears or becomes tainted to know it was of paramount importance. Keeping water fresh is not quite as difficult as you might think. For one thing, wood has naturally antibacterial properties; it can be trivially sealed with pitch and tar (which also has antibacterial properties), and it just takes one quartermaster to babysit it. If anything, beer is a way of preserving calories and boosting morale. The fact that drinking a gallon of it translates roughly to drinking 97% of a gallon of water and does end up being quite hydrating just doesn't imply that people didn't also drink water sans beer.
  - bohrbohra 1y ago
    What exactly would happen if I kept water in a sealed glass bottle and drank it after a year ?
larsga 1y ago
First of all, many types of beer were historically not boiled. Quite a few still aren't. The mash, however, pasteurizes the beer. That, however, doesn't last forever. In the conditions of the 18th century or whatever, microorganisms will get into the beer after mashing/boiling, so the heat treatment only helps for a while. The fermentation really does protect the beer afterwards, but it's a combination of low pH, alcohol, low oxygen, little nutrients, CO2, etc. Hops also help against gram-positive bacteria.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Hops weren’t that popular until the 1400-1500s (or not used at all in some places like England) though
  - larsga 1y ago
    You're broadly right, but they were popular for most of the period we're discussing. In continental Europe they were popular from roughly ~1000 onwards (see Behre 1999), in England from roughly 1500 onwards. In African and South American farmhouse brewing they're still not used. So it's a pretty complicated picture. As the comment made clear, hops are only one component of what makes beer safe, though. Storable, safe beer for travel is documented already in Ancient Egypt.
wqaatwt 1y ago
Yes and ancient Greeks and Romans already knew that boiling water somehow makes it safer to drink. Yet people continued wasting resources on time on making beer and similar drinks due to whatever reasons..